Does the 1619 Project have anything to teach us? A Soho Forum Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 жов 2024
- Two historians go head-to-head on whether the controversial 'New York Times' project has any value.
----------
Woody Holton, a professor of history at the University of South Carolina, and Phillip Magness, director of research and education at the American Institute for Economic Research debate the resolution, "The New York Times book The 1619 Project, and the Hulu video series based on it, are important contributions to our understanding of slavery and the role of African Americans in American history."
The debate is being held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.
Taking the affirmative is Holton, who is the author of 'Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia' (1999), which won the Organization of American Historians' Merle Curti Social History Award; 'Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution,' a finalist for the National Book Award; 'Abigail Adams,' which won the Bancroft Prize; and 'Liberty is Sweet: The Epic of the American Revolution,' which Holton wrote as the Huntington Library's Los Angeles Times Distinguished Fellow and as a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow.
Arguing against the resolution is Magness, the author of 'The 1619 Project: A Critique.' He holds a Ph.D. and master's from George Mason University's School of Public Policy, and a bachelor's from the University of St. Thomas (Houston). Magness' work encompasses the economic history of the United States, with specializations in the economic dimensions of slavery and racial discrimination, the history of taxation, and measurements of economic inequality over time. In addition to his scholarship, Magness's writings have appeared in numerous venues including the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, Reason, National Review, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.
"Does inventing history for financial gain have anything to teach us?" No, no it doesn't.
You hit the nail on the head. As long as money can be made by the race hustlers they will keep coming back. And... there's lots of money to be made. Lots
whats sad is there is probably a lot of true things in it that would be valuable to know but its all poisoned by fabrication and lies of omission.
No investigation was done. Teachers unions be like... same with schools with covid.. no research
I learned something. Even if it was just to ignore that crap.
Holton's groveling about "we white people" is sickening.
The myth that this history is know by blacks, but us whites need to be "educated," is just stupid.
Its where racism lives in this country. One small group despises another and no one calls them out on it
The problem with The 1619 Project is that it's just as grossly biased about what it's teaching our kids as they claim the education they're currently getting is. Yes, it's important to teach the bad and the good about history, but The 1619 Project just wants to be the new, dominant, biased way your kids are forced to learn. For example, Irish slaves preceded African slaves to the Western Hemisphere. Now, a lot of people will argue that "they were just indentured servants," but when you're forced onto a boat, at sea for MONTHS before reaching your destination, it's safe to assume you're never seeing your homeland ever again. Trans-ocean indentured servitude is basically, "slavery with extra steps." On top of that, Irish slaves were seen as LOWER than African slaves, & more disposable. I'm not trying to play the victim card (my Irish ancestors came her voluntarily), here; what I'm trying to show is that 1.) history is FAR more complex than inter-racial conflict, and 2.)
The 1619 Project is ONLY interested in the "whites bad slavers; blacks good victims" angle. They refuse to talk about newly-freed slaves shared almost near-parity to whites or talk about the black Revolutionary War heroes (now, ask yourself, _WHY?_ ). They refuse to talk about the quickly-rising middle class in the 1950s, even *BEFORE* the Civil Rights Movement. They refuse to acknowledge the damage that LBJ's "War on Poverty" did more to HURT black communities than help them. They only want to paint blacks as perpetual victims & whites as perpetual victimizers.
Growing up, I hated the blind bias I learned in History Class, but being blindly biased in the other direction is just as dangerous. Yes, I _WANT_ to learn the actual complexities of history. I _WANT_ kids to learn about the "dual-nature" of history, but you can't do that by just doing a complete 180°, either. You need to teach that the Founding Fathers did great things…but they also had their own flaws, too (just like everyone else). Not only is it honest, but it also makes these great figures of history appear more human. That can also be an inspiration to people. They weren't supermen; they were just man…AND WOMEN, of every race, just like us, today.
Thanks to the Internet we can now look at primary sources and with enough effort come up with more nuanced interpretations.
@@barcadna Sadly, most people still won't do that. Too many will still choose to be spoon-fed a bias.
Sure. And because this is true, no discussion of the brutality of enslavement and it's perpetuation in this country for 3 times longer than indentured servitude existed is warranted.
What exactly is the bias that you found?
Another perfect example of bigotry of low expectations. Lynching was done at a ridiculously higher level to Jews, but particularly Italians. Nuance can bring up morality and they can't afford that when trying to incite racial hatred toward people instructs vs rhe death traps we call cities they voted in as their prison. Just for context, Razofist has a fantastic vkdeo on the Lincoln "American Tryrant" along those lines. Should be a taught but it's clear these are indeed pipelines to prisons as rhey offer nothing of value. God bless.
Fleeing one’s homeland is NEVER voluntarily. It might be the best option though. Who really wants to leave their family and culture?
"Come on man stop talking about the things they CHOSE not to include! Just talk about what they talked about!"
Sadly, "1619" does have a lot to teach us about dishonesty when it is politically useful.
Whaaa??
"Does the 1619 Project have anything to teach us?" Yes. That people can be, and are at times, stupid and gullible.
#ADOS-#FBA-#FREEDMEN-#REPARATIONS
The RepublicKKKlans vs The DemonKKKlans. *#B1-#ADOS-#FBA-#FREEDMEN-#CUTTHECHECK-#REPARATIONS-#ECONOMICJUSTICE-
#DONTVOTEBLUEorRED* "We have No friends"- Dr.John Henrik Clarke
@@pwhales264 👈nope.
@@Semper_Iratus 🖕 So what we on not asking you We are demanding what is owed from the federal government It doesn't matter what you think.
@@pwhales264 You aren't owed anything.
An intellectual fraud of a project.
A false Revisionist History extraordinaire.
Denial comes in many forms.
Thank you for the civil conversation.
As excellent as the exchange of ideas is, the fact they can do so with good-natured, barbed humor, and still be respectful, is something I greatly miss about American society.
"Nobody knew this until the 1619 project brought it out" in other words it's made up 😂
Well they certainly did it at the right time. Fight racism with racism, so Trump doesn't get elected.
Love how open minded Reason is
In regards to the first speaker pro the 1619 project. Other people are talking about how charismatic he might be. All I see a lying, dishonest little weasel. He immediately starts off with attempts at charm...and extreme "guilt." The "Tennessee 2 or 3" were not thrown out of the govt. buildings because of the color of their skin. But for inciting a crowd that broke into the govt building. I garuntee he was not okay with crowds breaking into govt buildings when they were wearing Trump hats (as he shouldn't be). He raises all kinds of red flags to me. Just talks like a sleazy car salesmen that's trying to pretend he's such a great and "caring" guy. He is very obviously speaking agenda driven historical propaganda, while trying to spread it as the "cool fun hip" teacher. I can see right through it. Younger kids can't. Which is what I'm worried about.
I don't see a lying dishonest weasel. Rather I see someone with an emotional blind spot and a resistance to looking hard for evidence. Unlike Thomas Sowell for example.
Ended his first argument with "blood and soil" comparison, Nazism basically dishonest POS 😂
While Woody Holton (arguing for “yes”) seems quite charismatic and a gifted spinner of yarns, I was more persuaded by Phillip Magness (arguing for “no“).
While many unsavory facts regarding slavery need to be included in the study of the subject, the 1619 Project remains a suspect source for such study.
The Project was clearly agenda-driven from the outset. Both Nicole Hanna Jones and the NYT destroyed their integrity by not owning up to “mistakes” they’ve ended up having to correct.
I don’t believe in banning books.
But I also don’t believe The 1619 Project should be used as source material in public school classrooms.
To the common man and educated layman, the problem with the '1619 Project' is immediately apparent. It claims that a nation, composed of colonies founded by primarily English settlers beginning in the 17th century at Jamestown in 1605 (and much later became independent in 1776), was actually founded in 1619 when the first slave ship arrived. Come again? That's simply not a rational theory of causation.
Second, it's also irrational to attribute the cotton industry entirely to slaves. They didn't organize the capital. They didn't invent the machines. They didn't do anything the capitalist or entrepreneur would do. They were subsistence labor. That's morally abhorrent, of course, but how can you then attribute the founding of a nation to that even if cotton gave us all wealth everywhere?
Holton really misses the plot because the 1619 project isn't factually arguing or establishing that slavery is the foundation of America because black labor was more important than presently appreciated. No. The 1619 project instead is constructing a Marxist / Neomarxist postmodern narrative that the European immigrants collectively 'exploited' black labor, exercising their privilege, and only developed the nation because of that exploitation, with later wealth added by whites because a bifurcated system of oppression sucked wealth out of the black underclass (as they would put it).
This is not history. That's an ideological claim. A philosophical claim. And it's a poor one because it violates knowable economic law and ignores very obvious contraindications in the historical record. Slavery was a drag economically and caused misallocation of resources. Like a Gulag - no one ever characterized those as efficient capitalist vehicles, because they aren't.
Reality is so much uglier than even Magness would dare state. Blacks are key to the U.S. historically. But not as much for their contributions; rather, for the detractions, slavery included. And more impactfully, for the craven use of blacks as a wedge to win at politics through a race-war. Can't blame the blacks originally - they were kidnapped by their own in Africa. And then they hardly had much chance to develop a culture in such isolation, away from home and kin. It's horrible. But after integration into society over the last 100 years, they've done a poor job at keeping their integrity -- they have fallen for the progressive pied piper in the search for the elusive guarantee of security and wealth on Earth. Their elites, as a whole, suck.
Did the depravity of slavery occur?
Was the work product of people held by force as slaves taken from them without compensation.
Is there a consequential negative outcome on the descendants of the enslaved who remained in this country?
After the abolishment of slavery, did the depravity of treating people less than human continue?
Did a large number of people benefit from the depravity of slavery and of Jim Crow and of the current institutional behavior that views the descendants of the enslaved people as inferior to everyone else?
It also conveniently fails to mention that the first slaves in America were roughly 400,000 Irish people.
@@bastiat6865
You’re acting like blacks were 50% of the population. They were barely 10%. Even if what you claim is true that whites exploited them by “holding them down” then how would that actually benefit much of anyone? The gains would be minimal (which they were) and fleeting. Most Americans would have no contact with blacks for the majority of their lives. It had zero impact on those Americans. And for the the south it has been a wholly negative outcome with crime and poverty.
@@bastiat6865 The answer to all five of the questions in your comment is "Yes." This still does not mean that the *central claim* of the 1619 Project is true. The Project claims that the U.S. was specifically founded *so that* slavery could be the foundation for the nation. This is not true. Slavery being *one historical aspect* of the founding of the U.S. does not entail that slavery was *why* the nation was founded.
@@christianman73The enslavement of Africans produced the foundational wealth of early America. The Southern colonies only signed onto the Constitution after they were promised they could keep their slaves.
100 minutes to conclude "no, obviously" seems overkill, but I'm in.
6:07 I'm white and I would have been just as confused by the assignment as Jones was. Most of my ancestors were Mennonites who migrated from Western Europe to the Russian Empire before immigrating to the United States. They moved to get away from oppressive states that wanted them to fight in endless wars. I also have English ancestors. The only flag I claim is the Stars and Stripes.
right? I'd have to draw like 20 flags
Bro, did he really start his argument out saying the death of three nine year being murdered was "good timing" for him?
The answer is "No". There, i saved you wasting your time watching this.
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: No.
If you're not going to argue honestly why bother? Throwing out that an unarmed black man is killed by police at least once a week, to excuse the anger bias in the rewrite, is absolutely false.
I went from undecided to no
History isn't supposed to be a narrative or a story you just look from one angle. It's a rigorous analysis of the facts of the past that people can look to understand the why, how & when of the past events so they can learn from them, understand their place in the now, and adjust their bearing to make the best decisions. It was never about figuring out who are the victims and who are the perpetrators.
The 1619 Project was never about uncovering the truth, but rather perpetuating the belief that America is irredeemably racist and all Its systems must be torn down if we want equality or 'equity' rather. There's a reason they were stealth-editing their error-laden article and even left-wing historians had to call them out. Why mention all the founding fathers have done to fight slavery? Why mention Jefferson tried to allow slave owners to free their slaves? Why mention that Jefferson tried to stop the importation of slaves when drafting the Constitution? Or any other numerous instances of the founding fathers fighting slavery when you can just wave away the issue with a simple "The founding fathers were slave owners".
The goal isn't to gain perspective or truth. Like they said, it is a reframing of the sometimes distorted facts to fit a specific narrative to awaken a racial consciousness and victimhood complex to go with it. Garbage like this deserves all the pushback it gets and then some.
That first debator is pretty arrogant.
The second appeals to history.
Arrogance vs History... the eternal dilemma of debate.
Does the 1619 Project have anything to teach us?
Yes. It is a master class in victimology, historical fabrication, propaganda, twisting context, blatant misinterpretation, obfuscation, cherry picking, and out right lies.
It's really pathetic that neither of these gentlemen seem to understand that anything that comes from the New York times is ideological in its basis
Although I disagree with Phil Magness about most issues, I admire his tenacity in exposing errors and in some cases academic malpractice. People like him are necessary to keep the historical profession honest. That being said, Holton is right that Phil makes historical errors of his own and should get off the high horse.
I think Nikole Hannah-Jones is on *far* more of a "high horse" than Phil Magness. Not only is *she* the one who's been feted across the U.S. for putting the 1619 Project together, with its materials being taught in schools and such; she's also reacted very petulantly and even arrogantly to anyone who's dared to critique any of her claims. I know this from personal experience: I actually Tweeted my own skepticism of NKJ's claim about slavery and the American Revolution (which, among other things, gives late-18th-century Britain *far* more antislavery credit than it deserves) at her way back in August 2019, and her only reaction was to snarl "Are you a historian??" Whereupon I told her, "No, I'm not historian, *just like you're not a historian;* I'm a history buff and a journalist, just like you are. But based on what I've read over the years about the history of the American Revolution *and* of slavery in the British Empire (which was only abolished in 1834, 60-odd years after the Revolutionary War), I'm not buying what you're selling here." She had no further reply.
@@WestIndianAK I posted a response to this that was apparently deleted. I don't know why, since it didn't violate UA-cam guidelines in any way that I can see.
@Akil Alleyne I'll try this again (not sure why the last comment was deleted). I'm not a fan of Nikole Hannah-Jones either. I think she's a hack, and I agree with the critiques of the 1619 project by Adolph Reed, James Oakes, and others. But nothing you wrote contradicts what I said about Magness. Apart from the sorts of minor errors that Holton cites, which are near-impossible to avoid, I often find Magness' interpretation of historical evidence tendentious. When I've looked up his sources and compared them to what he claims they are saying (for instance in his review of the new Oreskes and Conway book), he is sometimes sloppy, if not intentionally misleading. I think he's a more serious scholar than Hannah-Jones, but I don't think he's above massaging the evidence to fit his ideology on occasion. The point is, this is not a debate between fair-minded, rigorous advocates of truth on one side and lying ideologues on the other. There is more than enough BS to go around on both sides, and some humility is in order.
Revisionist history at it's best.
Extremely common Phil Magness W
Yeah yeah… the only thing one needs to read to learn about slavery, is Thomas Sowell.
Woody's more entertaining than Phil, but Phil seems to have a better grasp of the facts pertaining to this debate. Woody's evidence sounded more anecdotal whereas Phil had more statistical info behind his argument. The history I learned in K-12 was somewhat whitewashed. We covered slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, etc, but I never realized the level of terrorism carried out against blacks during the Jim Crow era until I watched a documentary on PBS in the late 90s or early 2000s. Same thing about the story of what happened to Emmett Till. I didn't find out about the annihilation of "Black Wall Street" in Tulsa till about a decade ago (again on PBS).
I'm all for students learning a very comprehensive and factual history on what is now called America - including the good, the bad and the ugly. However, some very important points the 1619 Project authors make sound like they are counterfactual according to what Phil stated (the % of American economic output driven by cotton between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the idea that the Revolutionary War was conducted by the colonists primarily because they feared England would end slavery in the colonies, etc). I found their brief debate about capitalism interesting. A general definition of capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of production, so it would include plantations with slave labor. However, free-market capitalism implies all economic exchanges are voluntary (free of coercion), including labor. It is the most free and fair economic system ever devised. I think one could make a strong case for capitalism being the institution that threatened slavery the most (threatened its inefficient business model) in America. It would be highly inefficient to use slave labor for skilled trades, etc, because of the amount of supervision required.
It taught me that you can lie with impunity and get paid very well.
The rewriting of history after the fact really smacks of Orwell’s 1984 to me.
At 1:02 he asked what is bigger than cotton and I am surprised that neither of these people are aware that corn was about 8X bigger than cotton. This interaction belies the unseriousness of the person arguing against the 1619 project. He is not even aware of the constituents of the GDP figures he himself brought up. Ridiculous!
The pro 1619 guy sounds like he is drunk.
The two Tennessee state representatives that were expelled gave no defense of their actions except to rant on the congress floor calling his colleagues bigots. The lady who didn’t get expelled had a lawyer who argued that she only stood there that day and didn’t yell in the megaphone like the two other men, and therefore, she wasn’t as disruptive as them. Later she claimed it was racist that she was let go while the other two weren’t. That’s a good example of what utter liars the democrats are regularly. They scoop off the top part of a story which might look like it matches their narrative and ignore the deeper story that contradicts it. That’s just what this self flagellating, racism mining, whacko is doing.
I wanted to add america when it was the 13 colonies was not a monolith in supporting slavery. There were varied and heated views on it at the time, and while america as a whole did not abolish it until the end of the civil war, several of the newly found states rolled out abolition of their own, the first being Vermont in 1777, and then Pennsylvania in 1780. You cannot claim a nation was built on slavery when it was being rolled back that early.
The 1619 project is one of the biggest, most discredited jokes-proclaimed-to-be-history as has been written in the last 5 decades.
Slaves existed but in no way were the number of slaves so large that is makes all historical events and development of the country as a whole built on slavery. Most people by far were not slaves, most people didn't own any slaves, slaves were only used in a few key industries and as personal servants and such for the rich who could afford them as owning slaves means taking on all costs of supporting a human adult that if you treat badly you will also need to hire armed oversight of those slave humans who could hate you and end you with a rock given the chance. Worldwide for all of human history slavery was the norm and it was so much so the normal that it was never questioned for 1000's of years until the west took it on to stomp out slavery world wide mostly by Britain and the US as colonization gave the British the network and power to actually make these changes around the world and act as a police force on the open seas and pursue slave ships. People today cry about slavery being a massive modern concern and greatly effecting people now in ways other then what someone might think about themselves when it doesn't effect them at all and heretical effects of slavery and racism are so minimal you can't blame it for current conditions at all as it's been multiple generations of efforts with each generation free to do all they want to in order to change their own lives and the privileges they would leave for any children they may have. Blaming your parents for your failure when you did nothing to make any difference for your whole life is no different then blaming slavery or racism, except with slavery and racism you are blaming great great grandma for you lack of effort over decades to do anything to change your own life that only you can actually change in any significant way.
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
What infuriates me is that the author and her followers think that empirical evidence doesn't matter, and that if it doesn't show what you want it to you can just say that historical actors were just obfuscating their intentions-even if you can't find evidence of those intentions.
Setting 1619 as the year based on slavery undermines the roles native populations and other groups. Our nation today is the product of those who came and were here before up to today.
Wow. Woody sure is excited to show an audience how not racist he really is.
It’s disturbing that we have to change our history (and crime stats) to appease one super special group of people. 1776 is all about the independence and America becoming its own country. 1789 is a better year for us but we still use 1776. Racism is at the forefront of this and we never seem to hold the group accountable for it
This Holton guy is a joke who was a little too overjoyed to jump on the 1619 boat so he could get some airtime.
The guy asks if "so the good stuff we call capitalism, and the bad stuff we call not" in the definition of capitalism. The proper definition of capitalism is not a system that uses capital or some method of accounting, which is every system. It's a system based on the free exchange of goods and services. Hence why slaveholders are anti-capitalist by definition, as are communists, since both rely on force.
How to push a lie??
Stocks are good but I swapped and invested in Forex and Bitcoin trading I've been making good profit
Exactly!!
Forex and Bitcoin trading are profitable but with the help of an Expert
I just sold all my Stocks
Thinking of switching to either Forex or Bitcoin trading
I tried trading on my own but I lost all my money 😢😢
@@sebastiankasperek6213 I've been in such situation before and it wasn't an easy one
Thomas George was a game changer for me , ever since we met and began my journey in 2021 I’ve made over $650k in profits!He’s the only one I can recommend and also he is a FINRA agent so he’s well experienced all round.
One of these presenters is sloppy, scatterbrained, and kowtowed. It's hard to take what he says as serious when he doesn't even take the time to lay out his case according to the debate guidelines.
So instead of a debate featuring the best minds in the field we have this. Read the critiques of the 1619 project by read the detailed accounts from those in the field. What you see in the 1619 project regarding the link between slavery and capitalism/ economic growth comes from a man with no scholarly background in history or economics.
The debate question is bad. Does it have anything to teach us? Sure, but that's an extremely low bar. Even the worst books have kernels of truth and interesting factoids. A better question is whether it's a good work of scholarship, or whether it tells an accurate story of the nation's history. The answer to both of those is an easy no.
People should not mix up 'dramatized entertainment' for reality.
Like roots? Probably the worst offender. But hey it gives justification for the knockout game.
@@Yeetus223 roots? The knock-out game?
@@ArjayMartin Roots was a tv series that followed a fictional character and his descendants through American slavery. From Africa to after the end of slavery. At the time it was released it was taken as complete historical fact, when in reality it was full of untrue events and dramatizations. The author of Roots would later say that he wrote it be fantastical/ dramatized because he wanted to give is people a myth to believe in.
I believe the knock out game was a viral fade from the 2010s that showed young people randomly punching people on the street in order to knock them out. Some people even died from it.
@@Toba51 ahhh, like Dark Emu fiction book purporting to be fact for Australia...
What city was this hosted in? I live close to uptown :D
There’s definitely a lot of historical events that don’t add up which make the history of the USA look like mythology.
At a certain point the refusal to think critically leads to myth-making. There are no "sides" in this. There are simply facts. Facts don't care what we feel.
Just me or is the audio quite?
I hope you hung in there as they fixed the audio at the 8 minute mark.
So if you read it in a book it's not only true it's morally correct
Where are all the black people at?
There are probably many in the audience
Where are all the white women at?
4/20 is Hitler’s birthday
Nothing
Both debaters leave a lot to be desired in this debate. Seems too much about scoring points than discussing the context of what the writer of the 1619 project was attempting to accomplish and her motivations for doing so. She has her bone to pick with the system that has made her wealthy in spirit and in other ways.
LLLLLLEEEEEEETTTTTTTSSSSS GGGGGOOOOOOO MMMMMAAAAAGGGGGNNNNNNEEEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1776 found all men where created equal
the 1619 project omits the nuances that counter the narrative that is pushed by this project that attempts to make slavery the primary and only reason anything was done or got done historically. It cherry picks presented information from historical evidence leaving out relevant context that breaks the conclusion the 1619 project makes about history. The whole project is nothing but an attempt to re-frame and editorialize history to suggest an intended perspective is what is made one that is severely lacking in understanding and vastly exaggerates the whole importance of slavery while neglecting everything else going on in the world at the time make the conclusion a claim of modern assumptions and not something build from a complete analysis of the historical records. The only thing to learn from the 1619 project is that anti-capitalist ideas are still of concern today and this view on the world is actively producing propaganda with the intended effect of indoctrinating the next generation to have ideals closer to that of a Marxist. We should learn that the fight between the free west and the communist is one that never ends and one that can not be won but can only be eternally debated as it is not simply a nation that can be defined geographically but is a idea that must be explained and counter argued and shown in all context why it is a naive and terrible idea that has been tried and has never concluded in anything good for those who fall under it's totalitarian rule that is necessary to force all those in line with the demands of the all powerful state acting in name only as the will of all yet can in reality only be ordered to do anything from a person in charge and the only way to make anything collectively owned and enforced to be is by appointing someone from the government who can call the army to punish you if you do not comply with the rules the human who is above you in power tells you to do. That is a communist.
Who is the second speaker?
Always get my history from newspaper reporters. The lessons from history are to be twisted, and based upon current social mores.
What could possibly be gained by seeking multiple points of view, when I can conveniently just choose one. So much easier to be smug and self-assured, when I can deny any semblance of scrutiny, or scepticism. Easy thinking, easy believing.
4:50 fraud. He should never be near a school
see the book, 'Time on the Cross'
"I'm struggling to see anything wrong in the book." -Holton, a dunce.
The only thing to get out of the 1619 project is that two ply is better than single ply.
1619 is single ply and very poor single ply at that.
If the 1619 project is not sufficient as a resource for the missing voices in American history, then all other history books should be held to the same standard of debate.
It is that it is a deliberate lie
Debate? Research the backround and educmacation of the athor... debate over. What an embarrassment.
No, it doesn’t. 😉
Manning Marable did not write How Europe underdeveloped Africa
no
The.idea.of conquest.and rule.still.continues.to.this.very.time.in.the.form.of.democracy.😂😂😂😂😂
6:05 like there isn't 3rd, 4th and 5th generation whites in this country that aren't mixed with multiple European countries. What was his point? Hell i thought i was 100% Italian until i did a dna test and realized i have some Greek ancestry as well.
I can’t even…
awesome Phil!
Seems like Holton struggles with econ
No.
Facts matter,follow the evidence. You have the "recipes". Reparations Now! Cut the check...✊🏿
Cringe
I leaned nothing from this discussion.
Lol, yea something about cotton and errr...yea. I was thinking they would be discussing the different hot takes the book asserts that everyone talks about. 😕
This is proof that there is such thing as a stupid question.
"Do lies about history have anything to teach us about history?"
"NO!"
@58:30, "Talk about what they did say and not about what they did." Interesting. It's almost like the Professor Holton excuses Gov Dunmore to fit what he said and not what he actually did into a narrative. It's important to tell what he did because actions speak louder than words.
Good afternoon.
I think you might have misunderstood, I heard the following: “Talk about what they did say, and not about what they didn’t [say]”.
Magness is ignorant or disingenuous. Slave owners were capitalists when they insured the bodies of their slaves with northern brokerage firms. This is a wildly revisionist history by magness. Guy doesn’t understand banking finance or money or is just lying.
Did the Soho forum ever have a vaccine mandate?
I mean the fact that TN expelled the black men and kept the white woman is not good optics.
The first black man and the second black man had a difference of 3 votes, the second black man and the white woman had a difference of 4 votes, it just so happened that that 4th vote was what kept her from being expelled, had it been one less, she would have also been expelled, it doesn't look good, but there was no racism here, of course, unfortunately that incident will never be vindicated of its racist charge
Holton and Magness are talking past each other to some extent.
Holton says the book has many stories and anecdotes. He rightly points out many characters (like the Gynecologist who experimented on slaves, the activist tortured in prison) are brought to public consciousness who were unknown by the general public.
Magness's criticism is levelled at a particular angle of the project, and he says the project has gone astray from its original goals.
My takeaway is that:
- This is a history project that strayed into a controversial topic
- because of that, it's been raked over with a fine tooth comb, and any inaccuracies have been broadly disseminated
- it's probably no worse than any other textbook in its inaccuracies
- It's definitely not lies or made up, but does stray into advocating a particular angle of history (that American revolution was primarily to maintain slavery) that Isn't as clear cut as the book asserts.
- There are countless incidents of racism in American history, even beyond the obvious ones the public knows about.
No, it's a deliberate attempt to deceive and profit off modern neuroticism.
Given that there were ten million slaves over its history in the US, it would be impossible to inform the public of more than a fraction of the stories and anecdotes, suffice it to acknowledge that such exist.
But the thrust of the 1619 project is to cast the US as unique in regard to chattel slavery and that the US became wealthy because of slavery. Given that slavery has for centuries been the norm throughout the world, this premise promoted by the 1619 project is absurd. If slavery made a country wealthy, then there should be many such countries.
In fact, it was the West, led by Britain, that brought an end to slavery throughout its vast empire and waged war for many years on the Atlantic slave trade, a war which was joined by the US.
Thomas Sowell has researched the issue extensively and you can find YT videos by searching his name and slavery.
#ADOS-#FBA-#FREEDMEN-#REPARATIONS
Nope 🙂
Every American is the descendant of slaves if you go back far enough. Slavery was absolutely ubiquitous once upon a time
@@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069 ok... However only one group of people went through US CHATTEL ENSLAVEMENT, Jim Crow, Black Code laws , mass discrimination here in the US, redlining, mass incarceration, and that group of people are Foundational Black Americans, American Descendants Of US Chattel Enslavement Freedmen.
EVERY SINGLE FOUNDATIONAL BLACK AMERICAN, AMERICAN DESCENDANTS OF US CHATTEL ENSLAVEMENT, FREEDMEN SHOULD BE FIGHTING FOR REPARATIONS.
"We have No friends"- Dr.John Henrik Clarke . #FBA #ADOS #FREEDMEN #B1 #CUTTHECHECK #REPARATIONS #ECONOMICJUSTICE #DONTVOTEBLUEorRED
It teaches you can make millions just by grifting
Yeh, it teaches that if you believe any part of it that you have accelerated your stupidity to a new HIGH
🤔 ~ I like the wacky professor on the left-hand side of the screen. So I feel bad that he lost. Based on the question as proposed in the video (which is different than the title of this video on UA-cam) I’m mainly unsure still. But I guess if I had to pick an answer I now feel more negative about The 1619 project than I did before.
But here’s the thing, I’m a very introspective person and I understand what I don’t understand. At least most of the time. But other people often believe their gut feeling has a very high likelihood of being correct, and they don’t know what they don’t know. So they are voting with their bias.
I am troubled by the New York Times not admitting where they are wrong and lying. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that you can draw straight line from one part of the United States to the modern day. The world is filled with 1 million variables every couple of generations at least, and those are variables that are actually significant. And of course there’s more than 1 million people so there’s more than 1 million individual ideas though those are not necessarily significant on their own.
_Edit 5/13/23: updated a couple of small voice dictation typos._
Keep in mind they poll the audience before the debate and the winner is the person who sways more voters that were neutral or started against them to their side, people who start and end on one side don't "count." With that said it's not a particularly great metric since people can vote strategically, but ultimately the winner of the debate isn't really the point.
@@Vaelosh466- Yeah, I was thinking about tactical/strategic voters too. You would help they wouldn’t do that because this is about coming to the truth, but some people still wanna win even if it’s a hollow win.